Armenian Folia Anglistika - the reviewed international academic journal of the Armenian Association for the Study of English (since 2005) and Yerevan State University (since 2015) aims at fostering research of the English Language, Literature and Culture in Armenia and elsewhere and facilitate intellectual cooper- ation between high school teachers and scholars.

Armenian Folia Anglistika is intended to be published twice a year. Articles of interest to university-level teachers and scholars in English Studies are warmly wel- comed by the multi-national Editorial Board of the Journal. Articles should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief.

In 2007 the Editorial Board of Armenian Folia Anglistika announced the opening of a new section in the Journal – Armenological Studies, which invites valuable and innova- tive contributions from such fields as Armenian Linguistics, Literary Criticism, Ethnic Studies, Cultural History, Gender Studies and a wide range of adjacent disciplines.

Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Seda Gasparyan, Associate Member of RA NAS, Prof. Yerevan State University Alex Manoogian 1 Yerevan 0025 Armenia Tel: (+374 60) 710546 E-mail: englishphil20@gmail.com

seda.gasparyan@yandex.ru

Editorial Board: Yelena Mkhitaryan, Prof. (Armenia) Dr. Svetlana Ter-Minasova, Prof. (Russia) Dr. Olga Alexandrova, Prof. (Russia) Dr. Angela Locatelli, Prof. (Italy) Peter Sutton, Editor (England) Dr. Shushanik Paronyan, Prof. (Armenia)

Gayane Muradyan, Associate Prof. (Armenia)

Guest editor: Lili Karapetyan, Assistant Prof. (Armenia) ÐÇÙݳ¹Çñ ¨ ·É˳íáñ ËÙμ³·Çñ`

꺸² ¶²êä²ðÚ²Ü

гٳñÇ ÃáÕ³ñÏÙ³Ý å³ï³ë˳ݳïáõ`

ÈÆÈÆ Î²ð²äºîÚ²Ü

Èñ³ïí³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáõÝ»áõÃÛáõÝ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáÕ

§²Ü¶ÈºðºÜÆ àôêàôØܲêÆðàôÂÚ²Ü

вÚÎ²Î²Ü ²êàòƲòƲ¦ ÐÎ

http:www.aase.ysu.am

Computer Design:

Heghine Gasparyan

ìϳ۳ϳÝ` 03² 065183 îñí³Í` 28.06.2004Ã.

Yerevan State University

Press

2

ºñ¨³ÝÇ å»ï³Ï³Ý ѳٳÉë³ñ³Ý

²Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ÛϳϳÝ

³ëáódzódz (²Ý·É»ñ»ÝÇ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛ³Ý

»íñáå³Ï³Ý ý»¹»ñ³ódzÛÇ ³Ý¹³Ù)

²Ü¶ÈƲ¶Æî²Î²Ü кàîàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ Ð²ÚÎ²Î²Ü Ð²Ü¸ºê

ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ·ñ³ËáëíáÕ ³Ùë³·Çñ

ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ùμ`

ºñ¨³ÝÇ å»ï³Ï³Ý É»½í³μ³Ý³Ï³Ý ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ (г۳ëï³Ý)

ØáëÏí³ÛÇ Ø.ÈáÙáÝáëáíÇ ³Ýí. å»ï³Ï³Ý ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ (èáõë³ëï³Ý)

Îñ³ÏáíÇ Ú³·Ç»ÉáÝÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³Éë³ñ³ÝÇ (Ȼѳëï³Ý)

ê³ñ³·áë³ÛÇ Ñ³Ù³Éë³ñ³ÝÇ (Æëå³Ýdz)

ØáÝï»Ý»·ñáÛÇ Ñ³Ù³Éë³ñ³ÝÇ

ºðºì²Ü - 2015

3

Yerevan State University

Armenian Association for the Study of English (Member Association of the

European Society for the Study of English)

ARMENIAN FOLIA ANGLISTIKA

Reviewed International Journal in cooperation with:

Yerevan State Linguistic University, Armenia

Moscow State Lomonosov University, Russia

Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

University of Zaragoza, Spain

University of Montenegro

YEREVAN- 2015

4

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

Linguistics

C O N T E N T S

English as Lingua Franca .............................................................................................. 7 Seda Gasparyan

‘Disguised I’: Generalization vs Individualization .................................................... 18 Marika Tonyan

On Some Stylistic Peculiarities of Science Fiction ..................................................... 27 Gaiane Muradian

Pragmastylistic Features of Characters’ Speech in the Text of Fiction .................... 36 Mariana Sargsyan, Gayane Hakobyan

Correlation as a Means of Expressing Syntactic Connections of Parenthetical Construction with Main Sentence ............ 44 Marine Yaghubyan

A Metaphoric Nexus of Terms in Neuroanatomy ....................................................... 50 Alina Petrosyan

Sound Symbolism and Onomatopoeia (with special reference to English, Armenian and Russian) ...................................... 58 Armine Khachatryan

Descriptive Language and Idiomatic Phrases in P.G. Wodehouse’s Novels ............ 65 Armenuhi Martirosyan

Simile as an Indispensable Element of Expressiveness ............................................. 70 Manana Dalalyan, Hasmik Mkrtchyan

5

Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

On Questioned Document Examination in Forensic Linguistics .............................. 76 Robert Khachatryan

Communicative-Semantic Peculiarities of Tautological Constructions in the Present Indefinite Tense .................................................................................... 84 Astghik Chubaryan, Artur Mesropyan

Methodology

On Some Culture-Specific Issues of TEFL in Armenia ............................................. 93 Shushanik Paronyan

Teaching Situational Grammar Items Effectively ..................................................... 99 Susanna Baghdasaryan

The Problem of Social Interactions in Distance Language Learning ..................... 106 Tsovinar Arakelyan

Culture Studies

Interpretation of Emotions as a Key to Understanding Cultures ........................... 113 Lianna Matevosyan

Cross-Cultural Hindrances and Ways of Overcoming Them in the Process of Communication .............................................................................. 119 Narine Harutyunyan

Translation Studies

Allusions in Kipling’s “Just So Stories” and Тheir Armenian Interpretations ..... 127 Seda Gabrielyan

6

Literature

Coping With Canon/Canons: Women Poets and the Literary Context ................. 135 Aleksandra Nikčević-Batrićević, Miloš D. Đurić

The Interrelation Between the Author, Characters and the Reader in Cloud Howe by L.G. Gibbon ............................................................. 147 Gohar Madoyan

Armenological Studies

The Armenian Genocide: The International Political Boomerang of the Crime .............................................. 157 Alexander Manasyan

The Theory of Frame in Rejecting the Rejectionists’ Position on the Armenian Genocide ........................................................................................ 167 Seda Gasparyan

The 1915 Mets Yeghern (Genocide) of Armenians: History and Contemporary Problems ...................................................................... 180 Ashot Melkonyan

Concerning the Identity of the Generations of Islamized Hamshen Armenians ................................................................................ 186 Lusine Sahakyan

Cross-Cultural Hindrances and Ways of Overcoming Them in the Process of Communication

Narine Harutyunyan

Yerevan State University

Abstract The present study aims to explore the factors that hinder the realization of cross-cul-

tural communication. It is culture that defines the participants of communication, the choice of topics and communication strategies, the context, the way and conditions of transmitting messages, the method of encoding and decoding information, the set of com- municative steps, and so on. In the process of the contact of cultures the national-specific peculiarities, unperceived during intracultural communication, become apparent. During cross-cultural contacts a clash of two worldviews takes place. In this article we make an attempt to consider the mechanisms of transformation of the vision of the world in the process of cross-cultural communication, using two contacting linguocultures as an example.

Key words: cross-cultural communication, hindrances, linguoculture, linguistic para-

doxes, realia.

Introduction Two terms are used most frequently to denote phenomena that disturb the process of

communication: “hindrances” and “barriers”, and they are often used interchangeably. We consider it appropriate to differentiate them, to study the reasons disturbing adequate cross-cultural communication in more detail.

The factors that hinder the realization of communication as such can be considered barriers. They include not knowing the foreign language in a situation of cross-cultural communication or physiological factors, such as, for example, deafness or dumbness of one of the interlocutors. Hindrances, in their turn, are factors that lower the quality of communication: asymmetry, stereotyped reactions, language mistakes, and so on. However, there is no impassable borderline between these two notions. For example, not knowing the language does not mean a complete inability to communicate, as it can be partly compensated by mimicry and gestures. On the other hand, the process of commu- nication not complicated by hindrances is possible only theoretically. According to dif- ferent data, only 25 to 30% of the information intended by the addresser of the informa- tion is understood by the interlocutor, 10% is lost in the process of realization of the

ecause

indented into a verbal formula, another 40-45% – at the moment of the utterance b 7

8

of the shortage of communicative skills of the interlocutors (ability to speak and listen), and another 20% – in the process of listening and understanding because of differences in the level of intellect, competence and volume of background knowledge (Suxix 1998:52; Gamble and Gamble 1990:142).

9

Communicative hindrances can be of three types: 1) from the source/addresser; 2) from the receiver; 3) from the environment (Weaver 1995:23-24).

Hindrances from the environment include noise and bad visibility that disturb the reception of sound and visual communicative signals, physical distance (for example, when communicating information by phone or fax), and so on.

Hindrances on the part of the participants of communication can be subdivided into: physiological; linguistic; behavioral; psychological; culturological.

The influence of hindrances can lead to communication failures, i.e. the interruption of the communicative chain (as a rule, at the stage of encoding or decoding the mes- sage), or to distortion of information. The latter often becomes the result of interference – when factors of the native culture interfere with the interpretation of data about a for- eign culture. When analyzing the causes of distorting information, the so-called “serial communication” – transmission of information in turns from one communicant to another – is also of interest (Gamble and Gamble 1990:143). In this case a multiple or multi-stage decoding takes place, which is accompanied by the interference of multiple hindrances on the part of both the participants and the environment. Each communicant tends to omit (“erase”) part of the information that she/he deems unimportant, to sim- plify information before communicating it to others, or to interpret it on the basis of his/her own psychological peculiarities and cultural experience. This means that during serial communication there is a multiple “editing” of the initial message. As a result, up to 80% of information can be distorted (the effect of a “Chinese telephone”). In the the- ory of communication this phenomenon is called “dispersion effect.” As an illustration, we can use the situations when travelers’ stories about distant travels, mediated by third persons, appear in the press in an already distorted form. A similar phenomenon can take place in the process of translation, which becomes an additional step of decoding and interpretation.

Cross-cultural communication is carried out both on personal and institutional levels, and the nature of hindrances on each level has its specific characteristics. One may sin- gle out the following hindrances that function on the institutional level:

a) concealing information in accordance with the interests of the authorities; b) inten- tional dosing of socially significant information; c) structuring information in the form favorable for the authorities; d) using double-standards with regards to domestic and external problems; e) bias in presenting information about other cultures.

The knowledge of the participants of the cross-cultural communication about where, when, and for what reasons hindrances may occur allows predicting and preventing their appearance. Let’s observe the hindrances appearing on the lexical level of cross-cultural communication and ways of overcoming them.

Cross-Linguistic Discrepancies between Lexical Systems Linguistic personality activates word meaning in his/her individual word-stock. It

has been experimentally proven that, with the purpose of semantizing the word, the indi- vidual for instance “extracts” all its meanings (unconsciously) from his/her word-stock and chooses the one that is most acceptable for the given context. In cross-cultural com-

10

munication a wrong choice of meaning may be conditioned by cross-linguistic dis- crepancies between lexical systems: non-coincidence of the semantic structures of words, problems of homonymy, polysemy, and so on. Thus, on a visit to Cleveland a Russian girl was very confused when an American she barely knew invited her to visit the Flats. It turned out that he was not inviting her to his apartment, but to a district in Cleveland that was called so. Non-equivalent lexis becomes a hindrance exactly because it stands for objects or phenomena unfamiliar to foreign language communicants and therefore missing from their worldview. Such names are vividly marked from the national-cultural viewpoint. Here are the examples of Armenian realia that have become part of the English language: lavash, dooduk, xhachqar, etc.

The foreignness of the realia for another culture leads to the fact that its interpreta- tion by a bearer and a non-bearer of linguoculture may differ significantly. For exam- ple, for us the traditional Armenian kofta is a meatball made of well-kneaded ground or mashed meat mixed with onion, vodka, egg, flour etc. But for a non-bearer of our linguoculture kofta can be “the meat is often mixed with ingredients such as rice; bul- gur; vegetables, or eggs to form a smooth paste. Koftas are sometimes made with fish or vegetables rather than meat. They can be grilled, fried, steamed, backed or marinat- ed and may be served with a rich spicy sauce” (Wikipedia).

Cultural-specific meanings are also fixed in onomastic realia: I’m from Missouri – requiring proof; needing to be shown something in order to believe it. (From the nick- name for the state of Missouri, the Show Me State.); Lucy Stoner – a female advocate of women’s rights; esp, a married woman who uses her maiden name as a surname <the Lucy Stoners and women’s rights fighters of her own class at college (e.g., Gij Anush, Ara Gexecik, Msra Melik), i.e. those culturally loaded units, the real- ization of whose meanings is impossible without accompanying background knowl- edge comprising the essence of a specific culture.

The reason for communicative hindrances may be non-coincidence of the semantic structures of words, i.e. their discrepancy in the capacity and content of the notion, as well as their combinability with other notions.

The appearance of “false friends” in translation is the result of cross-linguistic paronymy. For example, the word “credit” is translated as §í³ñϦ / §Ïñ»¹Çï¦ in the context, where it means §ëïáõ·³ñù¦.

No wonder that they fail to understand each other: the word §քոթեջ¦ in Armenian is used with regards to privately-owned vacation homes, separate buildings in hotel complexes or two/three-storied houses in which rich or at least non-poor Armenians live. In English the word cottage can mean a small (predominantly one-storied) house – a dwelling of a peasant or a farmhand, as well as a small summerhouse in a resort dis- trict or village.

Euphemistic Constructions in American Culture One of the linguistic paradoxes is that Americans, who are proud of their openness

and straightforwardness, at the same time manifest an increased tendency towards euphe- my. The motives, forcing Americans to resort to euphemism so frequently, are manifold.

11

American linguists from the Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere, single out the following reasons: 1) striving to resolve complicated emotional situations, for example, when talking about death (“the dearly departed” or “the loved one” instead of “corpse”); 2) concealing the truth (“culturally-deprived” instead of “slum”); 3) attributing social status (“sanitation worker” instead of “garbage man”); 4) desire to present the situation as socially acceptable (“air-sickness bag” instead of “vomit sack”); 5) striving to satisfy human vanity (for example, with the help of advertisements), (“pret- ty-plus girls’ size” instead of “overly large/plump plus girls’size”); 6) “technicalization” of the language by specialists (“receiving waters” instead of “effluant”).

One may also bring the following examples of euphemisms spread in the US that allow presenting unpleasant, unwelcome phenomena, insulting someone’s dignity, in a more favorable, “ennobled” light: food-preparation center – kitchen; comfort station – toilet; etc. The tendency for wide usage of euphemisms has especially vividly manifested itself in recent decades in connection with the tendency of Americans towards political correctness, which has been secured in the legislation. There are lists of words the usage of which is considered unwelcome or unacceptable. American linguists have often written that English language is “sexist,” i.e. stipulating the manifestation of gender prejudices. That is why instructions recommend using forms that are neutral in terms of indicating a person’s gen- der: “human beings”, “human race” instead of “mankind”; “business manager”, “busi- ness person” instead of “businessman”. The address Ms. instead of Miss/Mrs. is also con- sidered preferable, it allows avoiding asymmetry compared with an address to a man Mr. (not indicating the marital status of its bearer). In letters to officials it is recommended that forms of address Mr./Ms. President or a neutral word Greetings should be used, as some women leaders refuse pointblank to read letters starting with the address Mr. President.

American linguists also recommend being politically correct with respect to people of various age groups. For example, it is not advised to use the words girl and boy to refer to people older than 13. Teenagers are often called young man/young woman, young adults to flatter their self-esteem.

Special attention is paid to words and gestures pointing at the ethnic and race affilia- tion as, according to V.I. Karasik, “the majority of subjective pejoratives in English are insults on the basis of national and race affiliation” (1989:87). It is recommended to avoid information of such sort in context: “Zhao She is unusually tall” instead of “Zhao She is unusually tall Asian” Besides, as the authors of the book “Understanding Intercultural Communication” point out, some offensive gestures have been replaced in the language of gestures used by deaf and mute people: thus, instead of a twist of the little finger near the corner of the eye to signify the Japanese, now the movement of the palm imitating the form of the Japanese islands is used; instead of flattening the nose to stand for African Americans – a gesture to signify the map of Africa (Samovar et al. 1981:212).

The norms of political correctness should be observed when talking about material well-being and people’s social status. “Indication of lifestyle in an English-speaking soci- ety is built up in such a way that less affluent people would not feel aggrieved.” So, for example, expensive carriages in trains are called first class, and the cheap ones are called standard (Karasik 1992:43). The same tendency is observed in the attempt to rename

12

some professions: “executive assistant” instead of “secretary”; “beautician” instead of “hairdresser”; “custodian” instead of “janitor”; “homemaker” or “household execu- tive” instead of “housewife” etc. “Non-prestigious” names like “second-hand automo- bile dealers” now are changed to “rebuilt” or “reconditioned” and “second-hand shop” is changed to “buy-and-sell shop”.

In situations of cross-cultural communication, euphemy as a form of indirect nomi- nation does not explain, but, on the contrary, obscures, veils the meaning, and that is why it may become a hindrance on the way to understanding. So, for example, even the British who visit the US perceive the euphemisms for toilet – restroom and bathroom – in literal sense, as a room for rest and a room for having a bath. It is natural that for native speakers of other languages, for example, Armenian, such forms of language expression turn out to be more complicated to decipher. Many funny cases are connected with incor- rect perception by Armenian travelers of such words and word combinations as, for example, “bathroom tissue” or “bath tissue”; “powder room” etc..

Besides, the difficulty in understanding and using euphemistic constructions by Armenian communicants is conditioned by the fact that the norms of political correctness are expressed very weakly in Armenia. One of the reasons for such a state of things is lack of laws and instructions in Armenia referring to norms of political correctness, as well as the fact that this notion has not been formed in the consciousness of most native speakers of Armenian. In this connection during cross-cultural contacts between Armenians and Americans awkward situations often arise, which is based on the fact that we do not take into consideration the norms of political correctness.

However, it should be pointed out that sometimes the effort of Americans to observe these norms goes too far. Unjustified substitutes are offered, “herstory” instead of “history”.

The use of foul language is closely linked with the problems of creating euphemisms. However paradoxical it may be, American language community that is so fond of euphe- my, has nevertheless quite high degree of tolerance of obscene expressions. The forms of linguistic expression that are considered acceptable in the presence of an American woman are unacceptable in the presence of an Armenian woman. The consequences of this circumstance in cross-cultural communication can be very serious. The participant of cross-cultural communication must be capable of balancing the degree of obscenity of the words and expressions in two contacting languages. Otherwise it may give rise to ungrounded resentment; incorrect assessment of the communication partner and his/her speech behavior as extremely free or, on the contrary, stale and hypocritical; inappropri- ate use of strong language in improper situations, and so on.

In different linguocultures the forms of expressing the external, social component of emotions may differ and thus influence the individual perception of the connotative com- ponent of the language. The wrong choice of the word may lead to discomfitures, insult and misunderstanding. So, for example, the word §ËݹÇñ¦ in Armenian is neutral, but in English “problem” has a negative connotation. That is why when during communi- cation with business partners from USA Armenian businessmen say: “Let’s discuss some problems” very often Americans feel (get) offended and embarrassed.

13

In essence the English language is more energetic, the way of expressing thoughts is precise and laconic. For the Armenian language, in its turn, a more subtle nuancing of meanings is typical, the whole structure of the language is aimed at expressing various shades of emotions.

Non-coinciding interjections that serve to express the same or similar emotions can also become hindrances. For example, §àõý¦ – “Phew!”; §ì³Ë, í³Ë¦ (ó³íÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï) – “Ouch!”; §Âáõ¦ – “Nuts!”; §Þßߦ (ëáõë) – “Hash! Hash!” etc.

Phraseologisms occupy a special place among language units from the point of view of their emotional richness and evaluativeness. According to E. Belyaevskaya “a word exists in the lexical system of the language, in the context of the linguoculture, on the crossroads of different associations with other language units” (1987:59). In each specif- ic context a word acquires new connections and associations that often follow it and later get their realization in new contexts. Connotations and associations maybe closely relat- ed to precedent texts (the term suggested by Yu.N. Karaulov), the knowledge of which is essential for adequate understanding of such nationally marked units as “gone with the wind” – gone as if taken away by the wind (A phrase made famous by the Margaret Mitchell novel and subsequent film “Gone with the Wind”. The phrase is used to make gone have a stronger force.); “Tooth fairy” – a fairy supposed to leave money under a child’s pillow in place of a baby tooth that has just fallen out; “Box and Cox” – used to refer to an arrangement whereby people make use of the same accommodation or facilities at different times, according to a strict arrangement (The term comes from the comic play ‘Box and Cox - A Romance of Real Life in One Act’, by John Maddison Morton. Box and Cox were two lodgers who shared their rooms - one occupying them by day and the other by night.) in English and §ø³ç ܳ½³ñ¦, §Ò³Ëáñ¹ ö³Ýáë¦, §ÎÇÏáëÇ Ù³Ññ ¹³éݳɦ (ÐáíÑ. ÂáõÙ³ÝÛ³Ý), §¶³ëå³ñÛ³ÝÇ ß³ñ³¹ñáõÃÛáõݦ (êÇÙ³Ï), §ï»ñ Âá¹ÇÏÇ ¹åñáó¦ (ð³ýýÇ) in Armenian. One may object that not all native speakers are familiar with the complete text that became the source of creating these units. However, we believe that minimal knowledge of at least the brief content of precedent texts is necessary to realize the meanings of the units under consideration. Not knowing the precedent texts both in one’s own and in a foreign culture, not realizing their cultural ties may lead to communication failures.

Conclusion For adequate cross-cultural communication to occur a correspondence of the world-

views of communicants is required. Relocation into a new cultural-linguistic space requires that a foreign-language communicant should correct his/her own linguistic worldview and bring it into correspondence with the changed conditions.

If difference in worldviews makes communication difficult and leads to communica- tive hindrances and failures, then a necessity arises to bring them to correspondence with each other: both communicants “shape their own pragmatic orientations: the first one – for adequate transfer of information, the second one – for its adequate understanding. In cross-cultural communication the main burden of adaptation falls on the non-bearer of linguoculture who is learning to think, speak and act as a native.

14

For an accurate perception of reality a communicant from a foreign culture needs to make corrections in his/her linguistic worldview, corrections that reflect a certain lan- guage and culture properly. The appearance of a qualitatively new image of the surround- ing reality signifies the transformation of the linguistic worldview of the communicant – the participant of cross-cultural communication.

References:

1. Belyavskaya, E.G. ( 1987) Semantika Slova. M.: Vysšaja Škola. 2. Karasik, V.I (1989) Status Lica v Znachenii Slova. Volgograd: Volgogradski

gos.ped.inst. 3. Karasik, V.I. (1992) Yazik Socialnogo Statusa. M..: Institut yazikoznaniya RAN:

Volgogradski gos.ped.inst. 4. Suxix, S.A. and Zelenskaya, V.V. (1998) Pragmalingvisticheskoe Modelirovanie

Kommunikativnogo Processa. Krasnodar: Izdanie Kubans.gos.univ. 5. Gamble, T.K. and Gamble, M. (1990) Communication Works. 3rd ed. NY, etc.:

McGraw-Hill, Inc. 6. Samovar, L.A. et al. (1981) Understanding Intercultural Communication. California:

Wadsworth Publishing Company. 7. Weaver, G.R. (1995) Communication and Conflict in the Multicultural Classroom. //

Adult Learning. Vol. 6 (5). Cambridge: Polity Press.

ØÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÁ ¨ ¹ñ³Ýó ѳÕóѳñÙ³Ý áõÕÇÝ»ñÁ ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ

ØÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Çñ³½»ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³éáõóí³ÍùáõÙ ³ñ¹Ç³Ï³Ý ¿ ¹³éÝáõÙ ÷á- ËÁÙμéÝÙ³Ý ËݹÇñÁ, ù³ÝÇ áñ ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ·áñÍÝ³Ï³Ý ß³ï Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÝ»ñáõÙ ³ÝѳïÁ μ³ËíáõÙ ¿ Ýñ³Ý, áñ Çñ Ëáëù»ñÝ áõ ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ëË³É »Ý ÁÝϳÉ- íáõÙ ·áñÍÁÝÏ»ñáç ÏáÕÙÇó, §ã»Ý ѳëÝáõÙ¦ Ýñ³Ý, ù³ÝÇ áñ ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ÁÝóó- ùáõÙ ³é³ç³ÝáõÙ »Ý ³ñ·»ÉùÝ»ñ ¨ ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñ: ¸ñ³Ýù ËáãÁݹáïáõÙ »Ý ÷á- ËÁÙμéÝÙ³ÝÁ, ˳ݷ³ñáõÙ ³ñ¹Ûáõݳí»ï ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³ÝÁ ¨ ϳñáÕ »Ý ѳݷ»óÝ»É Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý (ÏáÝýÉÇÏï³ÛÇÝ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÝ»ñÇ): àñå»ë ϳÝáÝ, ³é³ç³ó³Í ¹Åí³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ å³Ûٳݳíáñí³Í »Ý ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóíáÕÝ»ñÇ Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ï³ñ- μ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³ëïÇ׳Ýáí, áñáÝù ã»Ý ϳñáÕ í»ñ³óí»É ³ÝÙÇç³å»ë ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó- Ù³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ: гÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý ÝÙ³Ý ¹Åí³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ÁݹáõÝí³Í ¿ ³Ýí³Ý»É ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñ ϳ٠³ñ·»ÉùÝ»ñ: ì»ñçÇÝÝ»ñÇë ѳÕóѳñÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ å³Ñ³ÝçíáõÙ »Ý ѳïáõÏ ç³Ýù»ñ ¨ Ëáñù³ÛÇÝ ·Çï»ÉÇùÝ»ñ: ²Ûë »ñÏáõ »½ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÁ` §ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÁ¦ ¨ §³ñ·»ÉùÝ»ñÁ¦ Ñ³×³Ë û·ï³·áñÍíáõÙ »Ý áñå»ë ÙÇÙÛ³Ýó ÷á˳ñÇÝáÕÝ»ñ: ê³Ï³ÛÝ, Ýå³ï³Ï³Ñ³ñÙ³ñ »Ýù ѳٳ ñáõÙ ï³ñμ»ñ³Ï»É

15

¹ñ³Ýù ¨ áñå»ë ûñÇÝ³Ï ¹Çï³ñÏ»É μ³é³ÛÇÝ ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝù ˳ݷ³ñáõÙ »Ý ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ß÷Ù³Ý Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÙ³ÝÁ: ²ÛÝ å³ï׳éÝ»ñÁ, áñáÝù ˳ݷ³ñáõÙ »Ý ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý Çñ³·áñÍÙ³ÝÁ, ³Ýí³- ÝáõÙ »Ý ³ñ·»ÉùÝ»ñ. ûï³ñ É»½íÇ ãÇÙ³óáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÙÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÝ»ñáõ٠ϳ٠ýǽÇáÉá·Ç³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÁ, ÇÝãåÇëÇù »Ý ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóíáÕÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÇ ËÉáõÃÛáõ ÝÁ ϳ٠ѳÙñáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÊáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÁ, Çñ»Ýó Ñ»ñÃÇÝ, ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñ »Ý, áñáÝù Ýí³½»ó- ÝáõÙ »Ý ³ñ¹Ûáõݳí»ï ѳÕáñ¹³ÏóÙ³Ý áñ³ÏÁ: ¸ñ³Ýù »Ý` ³Ýѳٳã³÷áõÃÛáõÝÁ, ϳճå³ñí³Í ѳϳ½¹»óáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ (黳Ïódzݻñ), É»½í³Ï³Ý ë˳ÉÝ»ñÁ ¨ ³ÛÉÝ: Ð³×³Ë ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÇ ³éϳÛáõÃÛáõÝÁ ѳݷ»óÝáõÙ ¿ ÏáÙáõÝÇϳïÇí / ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý Ó³ËáÕáõÙÝ»ñÇ, ³ÛëÇÝùÝ` ï»Õ»Ï³ïí³Ï³Ý ¨ ѳÕáñ¹³Ïó³Ï³Ý ßÕóÛÇ ÁݹѳïÙ³ÝÁ ϳ٠ï»Õ»Ï³ïíáõÃÛ³Ý ³Õ³í³ÕÙ³ÝÁ: ì»ñçÇÝë Ñ³×³Ë Ñ³ñ³½³ï Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñÇ ¨ ûï³ñ Ùß³ÏáõÛÃÇ Ëáñù³ÛÇÝ ·Çï»ÉÇùÝ»ñÇ ³Ýѳٳå³ï³ë˳ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñ¹ÛáõÝù ¿ Ýñ³ Ù»Ïݳμ³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ: ØÇçÙß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ËáãÁݹáïÝ»ñÇ ³é³ç³óÙ³Ý å³ï׳éÝ»ñÇ ÇÙ³óáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÃáõÛÉ ¿ ï³ÉÇë ϳÝ˳ï»ë»É ¨ ϳÝË»É ¹ñ³Ýó ³é³ç³óáõÙÁ:

Ìåæêóëüòóðíûå ïîìåõè è ñïîñîáû èõ ïðåîäîëåíèÿ â ïðîöåññå êîììóíèêàöèè

 ñòðóêòóðå ìåæêóëüòóðíîé êîìïåòåíòíîñòè àêòóàëüíîé ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïðîáëåìà âçàèìîïîíèìàíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó âî ìíîãèõ ïðàêòè÷åñêèõ ñèòóàöèÿõ îáùåíèÿ èíäèâèä ñòàëêèâàåòñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî åãî ñëîâà è ïîñòóïêè íåïðàâèëüíî âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ ïàðòíåðîì, “íå äîõîäÿò” äî íåãî, ò.å. â ïðîöåññå êîììóíèêàöèè âîçíèêàþò ïîìåõè è ïðåïÿòñòâèÿ. Îíè ìåøàþò âçàèìîïîíèìàíèþ, íàðóøàþò ïðîöåññ ýôôåêòèâíîé êîììóíèêàöèè è ñïîñîáíû ïðèâåñòè ê âîçíèêíîâåíèþ êîíôëèêòíûõ ñèòóàöèé. Êàê ïðàâèëî, âîçíèêàþùèå òðóäíîñòè îáóñëîâëåíû ñòåïåíüþ ìåæêóëüòóðíûõ ðàçëè÷èé ïàðòíåðîâ, êîòîðûå íå ìîãóò áûòü ýëèìèíèðîâàíû ñðàçó â ïðîöåññå êîììóíèêàöèè. Òàêèå òðóäíîñòè îáùåíèÿ ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü ìåæêóëüòóðíûìè êîììóíèêàòèâíûìè ïîìåõàìè èëè áàðüåðàìè, êîòîðûå â ñèëó èõ ïðàêòè÷åñêîé çíà÷èìîñòè òðåáóþò îñîáûõ óñèëèé è ñïåöèàëüíûõ çíàíèé äëÿ ïðåîäîëåíèÿ. Ýòè äâà òåðìèíà: “ïîìåõè” è “áàðüåðû” íåðåäêî èñïîëüçóþòñÿ êàê âçàèìîçàìåíÿåìûå. Îäíàêî, ïîëàãàåì öåëåñîîáðàçíûì äèôôåðåíöèðîâàòü äàííûå òåðìèíû, è êàê ïðèìåð ðàññìîòðåòü ëåêñè÷åñêèå ïîìåõè ìåøàþùèå àäåêâàòíîìó ìåæêóëüòóðíîìó îáùåíèþ. Ïðè÷èíû, êîòîðûå ïðåïÿòñòâóþò îñóùåñòâëåíèþ êîììóíèêàöèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ áàðüåðàìè: íåçíàíèå èíîñòðàííîãî ÿçûêà â ñèòóàöèè ìåæêóëüòóðíîãî îáùåíèÿ èëè ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêèå ôàêòîðû, êàê, íàïðèìåð, ãëóõîòà èëè íåìîòà îäíîãî èç ñîáåñåäíèêîâ. Ïîìåõè, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü, – ýòî ôàêòîðû, êîòîðûå ñíèæàþò êà÷åñòâî ýôôåêòèâíîé êîììóíèêàöèè: àñèììåòðèÿ, ñòåðåîòèïíûå ðåàêöèè, ÿçûêîâûå îøèáêè è ò.ä. Çà÷àñòóþ íàëè÷èå ïîìåõ ïðèâîäèò ê êîììóíèêàòèâíûì ñáîÿì, ò.å. ïðåðûâàíèþ èíôîðìàòèâíî-êîììóíèêàòèâíîé öåïî÷êè èëè ê èñêàæåíèþ èíôîðìàöèè. Ïîñëåäíåå ÷àñòî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì íåñîñòûêîâêè ôàêòîðîâ ðîäíîé êóëüòóðû ñ ôîíîâîé

16

èíôîðìàöèåé ÷óæîé êóëüòóðû â ïðîöåññå åå èíòåðïðåòàöèè. Çíàíèå ïðè÷èí âîçíèê- íîâåíèÿ ìåæêóëüòóðíûõ êîììóíèêàòèâíûõ ïîìåõ ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîãíîçèðîâàòü è ïðåäîòâðàùàòü èõ ïîÿâëåíèå.

17

Our Authors Aleksandra Nikčević-Batrićević – Ph.D. in Literature, Assistant Professor at the English Department, University of Montenegro. E-mail: alexmontenegro@t-com-me

Ashot Melkonyan – Academician of RA National Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Director of the Institute of History, RA NAS. E-mail: ashamelk@yahoo.com

Alexander Manasyan – Associate Member of RA National Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Head of the Chair of Theoretical Philosophy and Logics, Yerevan State University. E-mail: alex@ysu.am

Alina Petrosyan – Master of Philology, Ph.D. stu- dent at the Chair of English Lexicology and Stylistics, Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences. E-mail: alina.petrosyan@yahoo.com

Armenuhi Martirosyan – Assistant Professor at the Chair of Diplomatic Service and Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: martirosyan.armenuhi@yahoo.com

Armine Khachatryan – Ph.D. in Philology, Assistant Professor at the Department of English for Cross-Cultural Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: arm_khachatryan@yahoo.com

Artur Mesropyan – Master of Philology, Ph.D. stu- dent at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: arturmesropyan90@gmail.com

Astghik Chubaryan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: astghik.chubaryan@gmail.com

Gaiane Muradyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University.

E-mail: g.murad@ysu.am Gayane Hakobyan – Master of Philology, Lab. Assistant at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: hgaiane@gmail.com

17

Gohar Madoyan – Assistant Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: goharmadoyan@mail.ru

Hasmik Mkrtchyan – Master of Philology, Ph.D. student, Lab. Assistant at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: hasmik.mkrtchyan.85@mail.ru

Lianna Matevosyan – Doctor of Philology, Professor, Chair of Russian Linguistics, Typology and Theory of Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: lianna.matev@gmail.com

Lusine Sahakyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Yerevan State University. E-mail: lkhastur@yahoo.com

Manana Dalalyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: mananadalalyan@yahoo.com

Mariana Sargsyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Assistant Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: mariana_sargsyan@yahoo.com

Marika Tonyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Assistant Professor at English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: marika_tonyan@bk.ru

Marine Yaghubyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Assistant Professor at the Department of English for Cross- Cultural Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: yaghubyanm@yahoo.com

Miloš D. Đurić – Ph.D. in Linguistics, Senior Lecturer in English Language and Literature, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade. E-mail: milosddjuric@hotmail.com

Narine Harutyunyan – Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor at the Department of English for Cross-Cultural Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: harutyunyannarine12@yahoo.com

Robert Khachatryan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Head of the Chair on Education

Management and Planning, Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences. E-mail: robert_khachatryan@yahoo.com

Seda Gabrielyan – Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Chair of Translation Theory and Practice, Yerevan State University. E-mail: sedagabr@gmail.com

Seda Gasparyan – Associate Member of RA National Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of English Philology Department, Yerevan State University. E-mail: sedagasparyan@yandex.ru

Shushanik Paronyan – Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of English for Cross-Cultural Communication, Yerevan State University. E-mail: paronyan_shushan@hotmail.com Susanna Baghdasaryan – Assistant Professor at the Chair of Germanic Languages. Kh. Abovyan Armenian State Pedagogical University. E-mail: susanna.baghdasaryan@gmail.com Tsovinar Arakelyan – Lecturer at the Chair of Foreign Languages, Police Educational Complex of Armenia. E-mail: mariamarakelyan89@mail.ru

18

Printed in “Gevorg Hrayr” LTD

6 Grigor Lusavorich,Yerevan Tel.: 52-79-74, 52-79-47

E-mail: lusakn@rambler.ru

19